iroh2727

8 ms·

1.
by iroh2727 4y ago
<deleted>
2.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Been teaching/tutoring. The pay is not great but it’s survivable. Much more flexibility with my time. I can basically just show up, though I can’t get away with coasting or not having energy when I do show up (which is actually good!).
3.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Agree, but really the question is: why is it going up and why is it going up much faster in certain locations or among certain demographics? Or why are outcomes much better in certain locations/environments/demographics? For examp
4.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Well the classic work on sociology of mental illness is not about schizophrenia but about suicide (Emile Durkheim’s Suicide). The same types of social causes can be observed with schizophrenia, though, in the facts of geographic disparities
5.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Preventative is always more important than fixing after the fact where like you said it may be very difficult to do so. Basically what I was indicating though, and which I get from for example, RD Laing and Gregory Bateson, is that the best
6.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Schizophrenia is usually a kind of coping mechanism to handle an unhandleable environment (e.g. family in the case of a young schizophrenic person). It’s also, as some psychologists (e.g. RD Laing) have argued, a kind of “journey”. If peopl
7.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Poverty in terms of what? Needs of the body are met for many (though generally with cheap, ugly, and/or low quality products lacking craftsmanship) but needs of the soul are at an all time low. Just judge from the present mental health
8.
by iroh2727 4y ago
I would not say that corporations in America are characterized by merely fulfilling consumer desires, rather creating consumer desires—often without precedent—and then fulfilling those desires that were created. As can be seen by the sheer
9.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Interesting question. Well, both are now capitalist hells, but very different forms. Both individualism and collectivism have positive and negative sides. With individualism, the positive is e.g. self-expression, creativity, innovation, whi
10.
by iroh2727 4y ago
+1. And let's not forget too that "AI", that is, ML models, are not "autonomous" in the way that humans are autonomous. Sure, we use the word "learn" to describe what they do, which is one word that we als
11.
by iroh2727 4y ago
It’s wrong because good capitalists do not want a measly 40 hours of workers’ time. They want it all.
12.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Well, just from reading this, I can tell that you have great potential, not just as a hirable economic agent but, more importantly, as a human being. Being "qualified" according to some company's stupid protocols (which may,
13.
by iroh2727 4y ago
It’s quantity first and foremost, of calories and of gas carrying us around rather than our own bodies. Put in the bigger picture of our capitalist consumer economy, which has been unstoppably growing since the neoliberal policies of the 19
14.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Our minds haven't changed. What has changed are external factors (e.g. culture and economic forces). So a causal sociological analysis would see those as the crucial factors here. It's best, if possible, to attack causes or mech
15.
by iroh2727 4y ago
That’s a reasonable explanation for the spread across racial groups. But that spread has existed for a long time. There are other even more important phenomena to explain, like (1) why is it going up across all (or most) groups and (2) why
16.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Well, we also gotta look at Google's outside incentives, those of being a monopoly. At the end of the day, it's not the most efficient use of resources to innovate internally at a monopoly (better uses include M&A, competitor
17.
by iroh2727 4y ago
I’ve realized only recently a way to interpret what’s going on at Google economically-speaking: as companies grow and as economies grow as well (e.g. to be more automated and industrialized), this always results in greater bureaucracy [1].
18.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Seems like a veiled (but really not so veiled) demonstration of military power, no?
19.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Not sure by what strange logic you interpreted this as an attack on “men”. They’re using “bro” in a similar sense to how it was used to describe Martin Shkreli as a “pharma bro”. Specifically, it’s unrelated to “hard work” and precisely rel
20.
by iroh2727 4y ago
I saw an article recently where an FB spokesperson was arguing—albeit in an indirect, fluffily-phrased way—that in order to be able to only track you in the places X where they're allowed to and not the places Y they're not allowe
21.
by iroh2727 4y ago
> because it would cripple the field of AI text and image generation I don't disagree with this statement. But arguably, it's becoming clear that these fields exist, on an economic level, as a means for already powerful corpora
22.
by iroh2727 4y ago
+1. There is a widespread "metric fallacy" or "task fallacy" going around. Models of course optimize for metrics, so they tend to perform well on those related metrics. Humans, however, are not simply metric optimizers.
23.
by iroh2727 4y ago
I don't think kids doomscrolled the bible.
24.
by iroh2727 4y ago
This kind of purely statistical investigation (quite prevalent in modern academia) is just so bad at investigating holistic causal forces. E.g. in the intro it mentioned “malicious envy” as a motive accounting for 50% of people’s desires to
25.
by iroh2727 4y ago
Completely disagree. I think what is great about YouTube are the subset of creators that make genuinely good content, and especially those creators you follow consistently for a long time and really enjoy and get something out of. The algos
26.
The Commoditization of Social Interaction and Other Progress(nathanieltravis.com)
2 points by iroh2727 4y ago|0 comments
27.
by iroh2727 4y ago
I completely agree with you that, at the end of the day, it's the actions and choices of people that determines our rights and laws and society as a whole. But at the same time, it sounds like you are acknowledging the agency of others
28.
by iroh2727 4y ago
You are completely right. For example, the Tories in the UK now receive more donations from dead donors than living ones. How crazy is that? Many of these structures, like trusts, take on a life of their own which is parasitic to the genera
29.
The Commoditization of Social Interaction and Other Progress(nathanieltravis.com)
2 points by iroh2727 4y ago|1 comments
30.
by iroh2727 4y ago
When science does not serve people, and merely the interests of those with capital, it is natural that some people will want to reject it. Though, ideally we can find a middle ground. I guess there are many causes for anti-science sentiment

More ›